 user created polls & quizzes |
Rate this ballot.
Vote on the ballot listed to the left, and rate the ballot below.
Submitted by : passiveson Submitted on : Apr 19,2012 10:54:01 pm ballot title: Should the US impose severe tariffs...ballot number:140133
Now enforce it Governor.
by passiveson
[+]
Voted : Tax them in partiality ???Did you mean "with impartiality?" Interesting proposition, but is it not also a concern that backlash might occur in other financial dealings with them? If we just annex Mexico, then would not all be good? Yes, I'm kidding; but it would solve the illegal immigrant problem which receives so much airtime these days, as if Mexico is the only country from which we get illegal immigrants. this could precipitate into a multi-faceted discussion, and I'm sure I am not fully enough informed & up to the task.
by vitasveritas
[+]
No sir Vitasveritas, I mean exactly 'Partiality' bias. That is to be partial in our dealing with the immagration problem. Mexico needs to be sent a clear and concise message that the US is done with the free ride their citizens enjoy at the expense of American tax payors. Backlash? What backlash? Mexico is not a major contributor to American economics. They're a liability (a minor one, I must note), but a liability just the same, in light of NAFTA.
by passiveson
[+]
For the record, such proposition would work like this: Products exported = 5X (the current rate)paid by any other country Products imported = 5x (paid by American buyers) the current cost.
by passiveson
[+]
ok! so be it! let's go with that.
by vitasveritas
[+]
for the record, I was considering as backlash the negative impact that certain "american" companies such as Ford Motors would no doubt receive by the fact that they rely heavily upon a labor force which has NOT emigrated North of the border. As I said, I have no real opinion on the matter, except that it may be more complex than what we see. If you think it will work, you may be right. I'm not saying you're wrong.
by vitasveritas
[+]
I doubt it'd stop the problem. Taxation, in the context you propose, is a coercive manifest of power, and so would be stricter criminal penalties in Mexico in regards to illegal immigration. Cigarettes are excessively taxed where I live and a good 20% still smoke because they assign a higher priority to their addiction. A certain percentage of the Mexican, of any socio-economically downtrodden population, will also assign a higher priority to the prospect of economic opportunity, whatever the consequence; facing the threat of imprisonment in hard labor camps or even death, thousands of North Koreans illegally cross over to China via the Yalu river each year. The reach of coercive power only extends so far; once it has been implemented (and in the US, it has been established as a remedy for this issue, excessively) and when statistics like illegal immigration rates inevitably plateau, its myopic to assume the answer is to expand the coercive prerogatives of the authorities once more; government instead has to look to other means, like power via inducement and persuasion. For example I've been told a lot of illegal immigrants are under the impression they're entitled to citizenship the moment they step onto US soil, so, it may be advantageous for the US to run information campaigns in the immigrants' countries of origin to dispel that myth, as an application of persuasive power. BTW, "unlawful insurgency?" Insurgency as in "an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict?" That doesn't seem a little rhetorical? Hyperbolic? .Point well taken Mr_Spleen.
by passiveson
[+]
|